The vacuum left by America’s abdication of power
Here’s a quote I came across recently in The Rule of the Clan by Mark S. Weiner (it begins with a quote from Robert Kagan’s The World America Made):
“There is a general sense that the end of the era of American preeminence need not mean the end of the present liberal international order” he writes. “The expectation, if not assumption, is that the good qualities of that order—the democracy, the prosperity, the peace among great powers—can transcend the decline of American power and influence.”
Such expectations are in Kagan’s view fundamentally flawed. The modern international order is an American one, he argues. It has been predicated on the projection of American power abroad.
In the absence of American national will, or in the face of American decline, the liberal institutions and norms of this order are likely to disappear. The conditions that have been so favorable to democratic development over the past sixty years will vanish.
There is nothing natural about our current liberal international climate and its values, Kagan asserts. It will survive “only as long as those who imposed it retain the capacity to defend it.”
The alternative to American global power is not “peace and harmony but chaos and catastrophe.”
Most liberals and leftists—including our current president—feel quite the opposite, and would dismiss Kagan as a crazy neocon. But I believe Kagan is correct, and I fear we are about to find out just how correct he is (we’re already starting to, but we’ve only just began) unless other nations take up the slack or America re-commits. But I doubt other countries have either the capacity or the will.
The US still has the military capacity. But for quite some time (it began during Vietnam, I think) we’ve lacked the requisite amount of will. We need both, and the wisdom to know which battles should fight.
The continuing argument between the pro- and anti-Vietnam War groups was mostly over whether Vietnam was the right battle to fight and whether it was possible to win, but it was also over whether we had the will to use our capacity, and if so how much of that capacity should have been unleashed. In recent years those who are against the Iraq War have made similar arguments—the wrong war, for the wrong reasons. The think they have won that argument, but I’m not completely sure of that—which is why they must fight back so hard against the popularity of movies like “American Sniper” that threaten their narrative.
But I don’t think there could be a right war for the right reasons for them any more, unless it’s some small and completely humanitarian action in a third-world country (and not fought against any Muslims, either).
[NOTE: Some years ago I wrote a lengthy post on the topic “War is not the answer.” You might want to take a look at it.]
When “American Sniper” was first released I read that some on the left were saying it was an anti-war movie. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but during the movie I became angry at how Obama could have just pissed away all the sacrifices made there. And then I became unhappy about the decisions by Bush to drag us into such long wars. Precisely because this country lacks the will to conduct war. And that was before the country had shown it’s willingness to elect a president like this one and a democratic party and media had shown how determined they were to undermine the effort.
It seems immoral to sacrifice soldiers lives to fight a war the country will not try to win.
All evil needs is for the good man to do nothing.
“But I don’t think there could be a right war for the right reasons for them any more…”
The ‘kneejerks’, ‘ultra-Leftist cum useful idiots’, and the ‘committed and relatively thoughtful and well-meaning’ are not all there is. There are also the realists who will not abide war for the sake of others, for exporting, promoting, democracy and/or regime change. The realist has also in mind that where there is a moral vacuum, there cannot be sufficient assurance of engaging in ‘just war’. The realist also recognizes a sea change in the conduct of war; the greatest change since the Peace of Westphalia – the end of the state’s monopoly on war. We are now at war with terrorists, extremists, Islamists, al-Queda, ISIS, Boko Haram, etc. The old notion of war as conventional war, is outdated. William Lind’s writing on 4th Generation War makes the case brilliantly that in the matter of war, we are no longer in Kansas — so to speak.
The realist has also an acquaintanceship with the historical record of American wars of the last seventy years — all adventures nearly fully failures with the exception of Korea and Grenada. The realist also takes note when someone who knows — firsthand — says we are not up to it and regrets the effort for the lost lives under his command.
Finally, if most liberals and leftists–including our current president–would dismiss Kagan as a crazy neocon, it’s no reason to demur from dismissing Kagan as being dead wrong.
One last tangential note. Ever since the War Between The States, all wars in which we have participated have, at their conclusion, precipitated an escalation of centralized Federal power. As we are now on a perpetual war footing, and in one war after another, we see a commensurate growth of centralized power – to the extent that ‘we the people’ are now listed as ones to keep tabs on and now live in a surveillance State. If any would desire to make the point of correlation over causation I would say of him, he is not a realist.
I now feel that Bush should not have tried to “nation-build” in Iraq. Muslims like Islam just fine and they do not think democracy is superior. However, after 9/11, SOMETHING had to be done. Should we have taken such a devastating attack on our homeland and done nothing? Some sort of real punishment should have been dealt. Unfortunately, we do not fight wars like that any more — to our great detriment.
I am unable to find the exact quote, I think it was from the pen of George F. Will, so here it goes from M J R ‘s memory:
It has to do with the run-up to the invasion of Iraq by George Bush The Elder, and the debates ensuing therein. Recall that Sadddam Hussein had managed to violate truckloads of U.N. resolutions and was in effect thumbing his nose at the entire civilized world. Here in the USA, we had the usual suspects lined up opposing intervention, and the usual suspects lined up favoring intervention, all making the usual arguments and casting the usual aspersions on the opponents’ motives and decency. Anyway, . . .
George Will (I think!) wrote, in evident exasperation, that the U.N. was formed to establish international order, that countries were expected to abide by certain international norms, and now, at the point of the actual intervention,
[here comes my George Will pseudo-quote] . . .
All those myriad supporters of the U.N. since its inception have agreed for many years that armed intervention would be justified in such-and-such circumstances. Every condition established by every U.N. resolution involving intervention by other nations has been satisfied, but there is still balking over getting the job done. It leades one to reasonably ask, under what conditions, then, would armed intervention be justified?
[end of George Will pseudo-quote]
Evidently, supporters of the U.N. never dreamed that the U.N.-inspired conditions would be satified in a circumstance involving USA intervention; those U.N. resolutions were intended to stifle the warmongering ambitions of eeeevil countries like the USA. Of course, the answer to the question above turns out to be . . . *never*. Armed intervention is justified only if it would run counter to USA interests, but never justified should it happen to coincide with USA interests.
But we neo-neocon denizens already know that.
History has already demonstrated what shall occur if the Pax Americana permanently dissolves. Exactly what happened when Constantinople, the last of the Roman Empire fell… the Dark Ages. Nature does not tolerate a vacuum but neither does it dictate the degree of morality of that which fills that vacuum.
Our enormous, unprecedented success here in the United States has allowed far too many of us to become fatally far removed from reality, and the elemental struggle to survive.
Based on our few hundred years of hard-scrabble experience, our people used to be realists, and experts in survival. But, we are now more squeamish and unused to giving and taking blows, lacking in their experience, we lack their realism, grit, and tenacity.
Things have been too peaceful for too long, and many of us now living have an unrealistic view of life, surprised and having a hard time comprehending that others might use violence to take what we have worked so hard to attain, or to smash it if they can’t succeed. And the nihilistic idea that “some men just like to see the world burn” is very alien to many of us.
The common lot of mankind throughout 99.99% of our history–ancient and modern, written and unwritten–has been starvation, pestilence and disease, war, penury, violence, ill-treatment, subjugation, and early death.
Yet, most of us go blithely along, believing that our usually relatively charmed and tranquil lives here in the United States today are the norm, and not an unique and almost miraculous and unlikely exception; an extraordinary and miraculous exception that many of us apparently somehow believe–absent our unflinching vision, vigilance, and extraordinary efforts and sacrifices–will just roll on indefinitely.
For many of us hard, ornery, individualistic Dirty Harry is no longer an acceptable role model, but soft, metrosexual Richard Simmons just might be.
Thanks to largely unpredictable events/trends and 70 or more years of Gramscian undermining and subversion, Gramsci’s goal has been met.
Since the end of WWII Americans in general and our culture have been “transformed,” our former backbone, our guiding religious foundation and understanding of the world, has been gravely weakened, and many–focused on acquiring and enjoying “things”–are “distracted,” and no longer appear to have the burning passion for democracy, independence, and self-preservation, the specific mind-set and world-view that used to be the unique “American” hallmark of our ancestors.
Many times it was a close thing, but these uniquely American experiences of our ancestors–veterans of so many hardships, unceasing toil, and agonizing and bloody struggles in these last few centuries–forged in them the realism, the common sense to see clearly, the wisdom to identify the correct course, allowed them to make difficult choices, and gave them the will, grit, and the perseverance to stick to that course, no matter what sacrifices needed to be made.
Instead, today, we get disgusting fluff like “leading from behind” and the President’s new National Security Policy of “Strategic Patience,” for who needs vision, guts, daring, and the application of lethal force when threats are ignored or defined away so that, “there are today no existential threats on the horizon.”
Rant off.
I will disagree with the assertion the USA still has the “military capacity”, since that phrase is unattached to any definition of an objective, as in the “military capacity to accomplish X.”
It is really quite extraordinary and amazing how rapidly the US armed services have been downsized and rendered UNABLE to do very much. Period.
Help Ukraine? Why, there is a lot of blather about what NATO might or might not do, but in point of fact NATO is really quite unable. NATO has become a joke. The US surely cannot do anything militarily by itself to help Ukraine. It simply cannot project the power of twenty years ago. It doesn’t have it anymore!
The USA can send 3000 soldiers to West Africa, anti-Ebola, to build “hospitals” which stand empty, kinda like Cuba sending Cubans to Angola. But to get into a major tussle with a near-equal, like Russia or China, is now basically guaranteed to be a futile endeavor or the opening of nuclear war. Our Navy has fewer ships than in the 1920s! The Army has less than 500,000 troops in uniform, and is shrinking every day. The only way the US can lead today is indeed from behind.
Some “capacity.”
It will take two decades of major, dedicated effort to undo the damage done during the Clinton (he started it), Bush (he misused it) and Obama (he’s actively ruining it) years.
Thank you, Lefties. Thank you, toothless GOP.
Don Carlos is right on. Estonia is in NATO. What happens if Russia marches in? In today’s world, it’s the U.S. or nobody. Now that women and children (youth vote) tip our elections, we are feared by no one. Even Assad in Syria and the Iranians can wait us out.
Mr. Britain has it right. ISIS and Boko Haram are predictors of things to come. There is no shortage of madmen willing to inflict their madness on anyone nearby if they are unchecked.
Linda P: “I now feel that Bush should not have tried to “nation-build” in Iraq.”
That policy decision was made before Bush was President.
See the answers to the questions, “The reasons for OIF seemed to change. Was it about WMD or democracy?” and “Was the invasion of Iraq perceived to be a nation-building effort?”
While the answers to those questions center on formalized Clinton policy, they were also consistent with the formative direction set by HW Bush policy.
More importantly, even had Bush not been on board with Clinton and HW Bush on the issue, he had no choice in the matter due to the US’s core mission with Iraq.
Recall that the core mission from day one (August 2, 1990, fyi), including the Gulf War, was enforcement of Iraq’s compliance with the UNSC resolutions starting from UNSCR 660 (1990). The core mission of enforcing Iraq’s compliance was thematic in Clinton law and policy on Iraq and carried forward to the 2002 AUMF against Iraq and Bush policy statements.
Key: The regime change of 2003 did not by itself make Iraq compliant with the UNSC resolutions.
When Saddam refused to comply volitionally with his “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441) in 2002-2003, deposing Saddam’s regime was only the preliminary step of the US-led, UN-mandated UNSCR compliance process to “bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations” (Public Law 105-235, 1998). By mandate, the UNSCR compliance process included nation-building factors pursuant to UNSCR 688 (1991) and related resolutions.
The guide-posts for Operation Iraqi Freedom and indeed the whole 1990-2011 US mission with Iraq are the UNSCRs, not the whims of the US presidents who enforced the UNSCRs under US law.
The UNSCR compliance process for Iraq wrapped up in December 2010 – see this statement by Vice President Biden on behalf of the UN Security Council. The formal completion of the UNSCR compliance process completed the US’s Iraq mission that started on August 2, 1990.
Now, did the Democrats know the UNSCR mandates and the US’s core mission with Iraq all the while they were making partisan gains by politically attacking Bush on Iraq? Of course they did.
WRT Will’s point about the surprise when the UN’s requirements are all met reminds me of Gulf I.
The Presbyterian Church (USA), noting with horror that all requirements of the Just War Doctrine had been met, decided the JWD needed to be updated. Presumably there should be a codicil something to the effect, “except if the US is involved in any way”.
IOW Augustine and Aquinas were old hat.
So, even if you check all the boxes, there remains thta unspoken codicil.
Eric,
The Bush administration did not invade Iraq because of Saddam’s non-compliance with UNSC resolutions. The Bush administration invaded Iraq for two reasons, both of which were in reaction to 9/11; 1) to send a message that the former status quo regarding rogue nations and their enabling nations (EU, Russia and China) support for terrorism was no longer tolerable and 2) to implement the grafting of democracy into the M.E. based upon the erroneous supposition that the individual desire for self-determination superseded cultural imperatives.
Don Carlos:
In my original draft of the post, I had included a brief discussion of the fact that Obama has been doing his best to undermine that capacity. I decided to delete that part, though, because it felt as though I was going off on a tangent.
I left in the fact that we still have the capacity because although of course we don’t have the capacity we did just a few short years ago, and it is hard to say “capacity for what, exactly?,” I decided we still have greater capacity than any nation on earth—for now.
Wolla Dalbo:
Indeed.
When looking at the fallout from the collapse of Pax Americana there are three global forces that are most likely to play a major role; Islam, Russia and China.
Islam is the most immediate threat but lacks the logistical, technological and intellectual resources needed to prevail against the West. They can hurt us and badly but they cannot achieve long-term dominance. Though less obviously, Russia also lacks the resources needed to fill the void. Which leaves China. I have long felt that China has not abandoned its communist ideology and communist imperatives and is playing a “long game”. There is much circumstantial evidence to support this view. Today, I ran across someone who agrees; “The Hundred-Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower”
Geoffrey Britain,
I suggest you read the UNSCRs and US law and policy basis of Operation Iraqi Freedom and, indeed, the whole Gulf War ceasefire enforcement. Terrorism and liberal (humanitarian) reform mandates were included in the enforcement of the UNSCRs.
Eric,
I’m well aware of the entirely legal justification used by the Bush administration in its invasion of Iraq. I’m simply stating the actual, real reasons they invaded, which at the time I entirely supported and am on record as doing so. With what they knew at the time, their real rationale made perfect sense. They couldn’t imagine that Americans would act so traitorously and while hindsight shows they were mistaken in assuming that a desire for self-determination trumped cultural imperatives, it was certainly a reasonable premise.
It was actually a brilliant geopolitical stroke, the establishment of a permanent and seriously armed US presence in Iraq. Partition into a federal Iraqi state would have been facilitated. ISIS might have made trouble in NW Sunni Iraq, but not nearly as much, and our fabled boots would have been there..
It went awry for a goodly number of obvious reasons, both domestic and foreign. The concept began its unraveling in the Bush years with Bremer and Maliki. Baraq was violently opposed to the notion, more so than has has ever been publicly speculated or admitted, I am sure.
On the 8th of June, in the year of our Lord 793, a peace loving monastery learned the Lord Jesus’ injunction about sell your cloak and buy a sword. They were giving peace a chance and had no means for their own defense. And they had lots of “stuff” and a great library. It was Lindesfarne and the first big Viking raid in England. The monks could not fight back; they were giving peace a chance. So, they died except for the ones taken as slaves. And all of their “stuff” was taken and their library was burned. But, they gave peace a chance. George Santayana wrote about 100 years ago “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Over and over again.
By the way, everybody talks sagely about Vietnam. But the question never asked is why did JFK get us into that war? Eisenhower had to clean up Truman’s war in Korea so was very reluctant to get involved in a land war in Asia. So why JFK? I believe that there is a clue in world history in the 30 years prior to 1960 and what was going in in the late 1950s.Think on it and see if you can come up with a WHY.
Related: an excellent, highly readable article by a medieval historian about the real history of the Crusades.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4461
Please consider passing it on. And boy, have the Crusaders been slandered by revisionist “historians” (but you probably knew that).
Geoffrey Britain: “I’m simply stating the actual, real reasons they invaded”
The actual, real reasons they invaded were the reasons in the law and policy and reiterated in administration statements.
The casus belli was Iraq’s noncompliance. The principal trigger for enforcement was the UNMOVIC findings in the Cluster Document that confirmed Iraq remained in material breach of the disarmament mandates of UNSCR 687, while factoring in Iraq’s other ceasefire violations, including the terrorism mandates of UNSCR 687 and humanitarian mandates of UNSCR 688.
The UN mandates were a spectrum. Your actual, real reasons were part of enforcing the UNSCRs and featured in US law and policy. 9/11 added weight to Saddam’s combined noncompliance with the weapons and terrorism mandates of UNSCR 687. That was reflected in UNSCR 1441 and more so in PL 107-243. Bush added no more weight to the regime change mandate than was standing policy established by Clinton with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which plugged into UNSCR 688.
Your take is not incompatible. However, you’re inaccurately characterizing reasons as a separate and independent masked agenda when they were actually part of enforcing Iraq’s compliance.
Funding AQ in Syria is a just war for the anti Iraq protestors.
Libya was a just war for them.
They were told to obey and they obeyed, it’s not like they have any independent thoughts on warfare policies.
George Pal
The Leftist alliance sabotages all the wars America has a positive interest in, and then you people go fetch their propaganda sticks like pet dogs. Which provides a smokescreen of propaganda for them, as you illustrate all the reasons which are truly irrelevant and merely side effects of Leftist policies and power.
Eric,
Iraq’s repeated noncompliance certainly were used to justify the invasion. But had 9/11 not happened, Bush would never have invaded Iraq because the US Congress would not have voted to give him the power to do so, nor would the public have supported another war.
The invasion of Iraq in actuality, had nothing to do with ‘enforcing international law’ and everything to do with attempting to stop future 9/11s.
The invasion of Iraq was part of a comprehensive strategy that the Bush administration developed to fight the WOT. That you fail to see it, changes it not a whit. We shall have to agree to disagree.
bob sykes,
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.” the prophet Isaiah
Russia was already filling up that vacuum. Somebody has to do it.
Geoffrey Britain,
Again, you’ve missed that enforcing Iraq’s compliance with the UNSCRs included terrorism mandates and regime change policy. You haven’t appreciated the scope of the ceasefire enforcement.
By 1995, Clinton had ordered that prevention of WMD acquisition by terrorists was a principal national security priority. By 1998, Clinton had warned of the danger of terrorists acquiring WMD from WMD-noncompliant, terrorism-noncompliant Saddam. Also by 1998, Clinton with Congress had determined that bringing Iraq into compliance with its obligations, which covered Saddam’s combined WMD/terrorist threat, would require regime change.
You’re correct that 9/11 changed the threat consideration for noncompliant Saddam and galvanized the urgency to expeditiously resolve Iraq’s noncompliance. Bush was open about that and PL 107-243 and UNSCR 1441 reflected it.
However, the changed threat consideration that you interpreted as an indicator of separate and independent masked agenda for Operation Iraqi Freedom was in fact within the scope of enforcing Iraq’s compliance with the UNSCRs. The post-9/11 UNSCR and US law on Iraq reiterated standing law and policy.
Before and after 9/11, the threat of Saddam’s noncompliance was defined within the scope of the ceasefire enforcement. The difference made by 9/11 was a jolt to the political will to expeditiously resolve Iraq’s noncompliance, but the grounds you highlight were already part of the ceasefire enforcement. Liberal, humanitarian reform was already part of the ceasefire enforcement. Enforcing Iraq’s compliance as a normative signal to other rogue actors was already part of the ceasefire enforcement.
More significantly to your contention, the remedy for the threat was within the scope of the ceasefire enforcement: if Saddam would not comply volitionally in his “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441), then regime change to bring Iraq into compliance with the UNSCRs.
So, you’re not wrong – 9/11 did change the threat calculation for Saddam with added urgency and the grounds you emphasize were included. But you’re incorrect to characterize the change and those grounds as indicator of independent masked agenda for OIF separate from enforcing Iraq’s compliance with the UNSCRs. The change induced by 9/11 was within the scope of the ceasefire enforcement and represented as such.
Geoffrey and Eric,
I think there was also the assumption that Saddam would use any diminishment of AQ to push for his own role as strong man in the Islamic world. After all, he was having some success in convincing the world that we were responsible for starving Iraqis. He was also bribing people with oil for food money to oppose any further efforts to enforce sanctions. If he could convince Hans Blix that he would abide by UNSCR with just a bit more time, he was having some success in bragging to the world that he had won against us and therefore he was the strong man. The do-gooders of the world were on his side.
Wolla Dalbo,
There was a WSJ article this weekend about mothers decorationg their young daughter’s bedroom as princess castles. The spend thousands and thousand for turrets and pink wallpaper. I almost vomitted when I read it, but I kept wondering what kind of adults these little princesses will grow up to be. They certainly won’t have any memories of canning their own food for the winter or sewing their own clothes and curtains. I am very glad I grew up in earlier times and had to learn about real life.
As Kipling would say, We’ve lost our gutter-devil and we haven’t got our pride.
The whole West is in the same boat, with the process being more advanced in Europe.
I really fear for the future.
“It was actually a brilliant geopolitical stroke, the establishment of a permanent and seriously armed US presence in Iraq.”
A bonus, Iran was in a pincer?
In response to you remarks regarding the declining US military, I thought I would add that
there has been a shift to stealth and electronic warfare which is still ongoing. Reagan’s “Star Wars” (SDI) is well under way. Is that a problem? Well yes if strategists don’t understand that you can still be “low teched”. Example IED countermeasures only work when they jam an RF signal sent remotely from afar, but it doesn’t eliminate the possibility of a hard wired detonator or a timer, though less precise and reliable.
I worry that strategists don’t have a practical, effective response to asymmetrical warfare, a real problem from my POV.
“I almost vomited when I read it, but I kept wondering what kind of adults these little princesses will grow up to be.”
To be fair, many young adults have lived a cocooned life, insulated from reality and consequences. I don’t know that it is necessarily their fault; often it is all they have known; like the fish in the sea, not knowing what water is. Even baby boomers who grew up after the development of antibiotics were ignorant of the pain, tragedy and loss that was just life for previous generations. It’s the nature of the beast and I don’t know if there is an antidote.
“I worry that strategists don’t have a practical, effective response to asymmetrical warfare, a real problem from my POV.” Exasperated
I agree, the desire for a high tech advantage can easily blind strategists to the advantages and potential effectiveness of low tech methods. i.e. IEDs.
Yarsmaker,
You reach too far to make a spurious point. I am not a fetch dog – for the Left or Pax Americana. If the Left is right for all the wrong reasons (all of them anti-American) then I’ll have no truck with them for I have no wish to be right by merely being against them – I am not of the ‘you’re either with us or against us’ clubhouse.
My argument is, all of it, an opposition to the idea that we (the nation) have a positive interest in so many foreign adventures. It is an opposition most conservative, from Patrick Buchanan going back to Senator Fulbright*, Secretary of State William H. Seward, all the way to the founders — James Monroe (Monroe Doctrine), Thomas Jefferson (Inaugural Address), George Washington (Farewell Address), and Thomas Paine (the list is not exhaustive).
It is no foreign policy to resort to war, tentative, limited, incremental, when confronted with ‘bat shit crazy’ (and leave the thousands of wounded soldiers to the ministrations of the corrupt VA) – whether it be of the crazy of Middle Eastern Islamism, Russian Putinism, Chinese (remember Nanking-ism), or whatever. The drum beats over Iranian nuclearism, Syrian despotism, Ukraine é¼ber alles, and the ISIS, Boko Haram, Taliban (remember them?) boogeyman. One may fight fire with fire but not ‘bat shit crazy’ with ‘bat shit crazy’.
*Senator Fulbright, author of THE ARROGANCE OF POWER:
“Power tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is particularly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God’s favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations–to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image. Power confuses itself with virtue and tends also to take itself for omnipotence. Once imbued with the idea of a mission, a great nation easily assumes that it has the means as well as the duty to do God’s work.”
George Pal,
“The drum beats over Iranian nuclearism… boogeyman”
Is it your contention that concerns over Iran gaining nuclear missile weapons capability is worry over a ‘boogeyman’?
expat,
That certainly was a valid concern.
Eric,
Yes, enforcing Iraq’s compliance with the UNSCRs included terrorism mandates and regime change policy. No argument as to the legal rationale. That provided the legal validation needed for Bush to invade.
But that is NOT why the Bush administration invaded.
Until 9/11, invading Iraq was a political non-starter. After 9/11, the Bush administration’s entire focus was in fighting ‘radical Islam’. Attacking radical Islam’s infrastructural support by sending an unequivocal message to it’s rogue nations and the enabling nations and, implanting democracy into arguably the most secular Muslim nation, while simultaneously taking out a dictator in pursuit of WMD technology was deemed the most effective strategy in the WOT.
That is WHY we invaded, NOT to enforce UN Security Council sanctions that Saddam had repeatedly thumbed his nose at. Lawyers don’t invade, they sue. Sheepdogs invade when the wolves must be stopped.
Realists need to study Putin’s tactic of hybrid war and use it, too, as less costly alternative to conventional warfare. Today wars must be stealth, with massive official denial of their existence and use all kind of proxies instead of regular troops.
Is it the US that does not have the will, or is it basically Democrats who not only are okay with America’s decline, but who relish it and champion it?
Of course we know the answer.
The enemy of America is inside, not outside.
In Michael Walsh’s Phrasing – the Crime Syndicate Masquerading as a Political Party (and I would add ALL the people who vote for them) – is THE central problem in the world today….
Yes, the World. The more that Mob Family and its thuggish tribe wins, the more the whole world loses.
The technology of destruction makes Democrats the actual single biggest existential threat to Earth since that freaking comet that did in the Dinosaurs.
Geoffrey Britain,
Yes. That is my contention. The genie that is nuclear proliferation is out – status quo ante has left the bottle. Pakistan, progressively more Islamic, ergo less progressive, has them. Black, despotic, genocidal, South Africa has them. The axis of evil will have them. The satellites and agents of the axis will have them (terror grade).
As I said in my initial comment, war is not what it had been — no trenches, no lines — Hindenberg’s, Siegfreid’s, or Maginot’s. Blitzkriegs and ‘shock and awe’ are so yesterday. We had better study war no more – the curriculum is outdated. Absent a willingness to take into account our limitations, our arrogance, and a sea change in history, we will suffer, our bankruptcies, moral and economic, will be greater, and our soldiers will continue to be sacrificed on the altar of good intentions and great expectations and feel-goodism.
And the world will not have been made better, safer, one bit.
Eric & Geoffrey…Damned good exchange, Guys. I’m looking across my study’s desk at a bookshelf of some ‘ancient history’ books still well worth reading: “The Greatest Threat: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Growing Threat of Global Security” by Ambassador Richard Butler, former Chief of UNSCOM, (New York, 2000 & 2001); “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq”, by Kenneth Pollack, Council on Foreign Relations, (New York, 2002); And, just for the delightful, adventurous Hell of it: “Sadadam’s Bombmaker” by Dr. Khidhir Hamza, (New York, 2000)the memoir of the man who helped design Saddam’s nuke program & escaped to tell.
______________________________________
I well remember—with a bitter smile—the disgusting Democrat Senate Leader, Little Tommy Daschle, pompously pleading from the floor of that chamber all through the summer of 2002,”Mr. President…What are YOU going to do about Iraq?!” Funny how those things have vanished in the Lib-Left-MSM Ether over the years. Little Joey Biden advocating VERY “inhanced” techniques to extract info from Islamist Butchers. So many, many more.
Iraq had to be cleaned out in our Post 9/11 World. Saddam could have said ‘come on in’, but chose entirely suicidal behavior instead. REMINDER: Recall how quickly Libya’s Kadaffi opened his Nukes to handovers when Iraq fell and the level of Bush’s serious follow-through muscle was shown?? Imagine!!
Then came Obam-Bam. The holder of the Vast Testicular Concavity abandoned the huge & costly VICTORY of Iraq. Retreated and left a Vacuum. Unforgivable. Loathsome. Our enemies took his scrawny measure and our friends were aghast at his weakness. The world is reaping the whirlwind The Infantile Majesty hath sown.
Are we not Blessed?
My bad gut feeling is that the civilized world needs atrocities at grand scale before it comes to its senses and aquire moral sertitude to fight evil by all its might. Now the public attitude is like it was in USA before Pearl Harbor, when isolationists had upper hand in American foreign policy desisions.
“Realists need to study Putin’s tactic of hybrid war and use it, too, as less costly alternative to conventional warfare. Today wars must be stealth, with massive official denial of their existence and use all kind of proxies instead of regular troops.”
Sergey, Are you suggesting emulating hybrid war or developing counter measures for hybrid war? As far as I know the USA is not imperialist or even expansionist, so it seems to me that what we need are effective countermeasures.
That said, are you suggesting this strategy as a jumping off point for tactics in asymmetrical warfare. I’m not seeing how that would be helpful. The proposal I have heard for combating asymmetrical warfare is the model for containing piracy. Admittedly, I am way out of my depth.
Sergey at 12:28 pm,
I don’t agree with the US using proxies. It prolongs conflict rather than ends it. Which is why our enemies use it, in a strategy of ‘death by a thousand cuts’. The problem isn’t ‘bad’ wars, the problem is not finishing the job.
Sergey at 1:29 pm,
That is my bad gut feeling as well and when it comes to the public’s complacent denial, the situation is very much like pre-pearl harbor…
“I well remember–with a bitter smile–the disgusting Democrat Senate Leader, Little Tommy Daschle, pompously pleading from the floor of that chamber all through the summer of 2002,”Mr. President…What are YOU going to do about Iraq?!” Funny how those things have vanished in the Lib-Left-MSM Ether over the years. Little Joey Biden advocating VERY “inhanced” techniques to extract info from Islamist Butchers. So many, many more.” NeoConScum
I cannot think of a single reason why the GOP could not have run political ads, reminding the LIVs of those ‘former statements’ by hypocritical democrats. CSPAN has it all, just juxtapose the earlier statement, against the later one.
“the Crime Syndicate Masquerading as a Political Party (and I would add ALL the people who vote for them)” Mike
No disagreement as to the “Crime Syndicate”. Profoundly disagree that all or even most who vote democrat are evil. There’s a reason why the expression is, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. Evil people do NOT have ‘good intentions’.
George Pal,
Your contention is profoundly mistaken. Once Iran gets nukes the genie will indeed be out of the bottle because that event marks the tipping point. Pakistan is currently ruled by its strong man faction, if the government falls to the fanatics, at this time we could take out its nukes by whatever means are necessary. Not that Obama would do that.
Saddam Hussein is looking up from hell with contempt at the assertion that, “‘shock and awe’ are so yesterday”. Boots on the ground hold territory, all else is either preparation or procrastination.
As for, “We had better study war no more — the curriculum is outdated.”
Trotsky’s observation that, “You may not be interested in war but it is interested in you” is as true today as it was when he spoke it and, it will remain true as long as each generation produces its ‘quota’ of the criminally minded. A societal failure to study war is a decision to be conquered.
Our modern wars have been for the most part a response to an existential threat. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I & II and Afghanistan all. They have NOT been motivated by an unwillingness to take into account our limitations, our arrogance, or good intentions, great expectations or feel-goodism. Realpolitik governs the actions of nations at the geo-political level.
Geoffrey Britain,
“Not that Obama would do that.”
Not that any of the recent presidents, dating back to Eisenhower, would have done that. Who knows what the future may bring. I am not, have not been for some time, sanguine.
You have evidently missed the point of study war no more. Study it by all means, but study it as it’s being waged by the attackers, not waged by the reactors. Since the bombing campaign ordered by Obama, ISIS in Syria/Iraq hold more territory.
“Our modern wars have been for the most part a response to an existential threat.”
Threat to whom? Korea threatened the US? Vietnam? Iraq I & II? Afghanistan? Syria?
”Realpolitik governs the actions of nations at the geo-political level.”
True for adventurist wars; not true for just wars – defensive wars. See Israel.
George Pal at 12:51 pm said, ” Absent a willingness to take into account our limitations, our arrogance”….
To which I respond, arrogantly, in the best spirit of the US during the Battle of the Bulge: Nuts.
The day may come, and I hope it does, when we must simply toss people with such attitudes over the side. They refuse to help us, so why should we help them?
George,
We’re talking of US wars not Israel’s. But realpolitik absolutely governs Israel’s actions, why do you think they always stop when they have the Muslims on the ropes? They bow to international ‘opinion’ and US constraints, i.e. realpolitik.
I didn’t miss your point, you failed to make it clear. But I’m completely on board with “knowing your enemy”.
Obama’s bombing campaign of ISIS is purely show and commonly known to be a bad joke. Our involvement in Syria/Iraq is so tepid that it doesn’t even qualify as a ‘police action’.
Korea and Vietnam were an existential threat to the international order and our allies. If a nation fails to come to the aid of an ally when they are under attack, one day you wake up to find you have no allies. The expansionist threat was not imaginary. I remember seeing on TV, Khrushchev pounding with his shoe on the lectern in the UN when he shouted, “We will bury you!”.
The first Gulf War was about an existential threat to the stability of the world’s oil supplies, which was a direct threat to Western economies. Only with the greatest of reluctance did the Saudis allow US troops on their soil. They assessed the threat from Saddam as an existential threat.
Both Afghanistan and Iraq II were strategic responses to Islam’s war of aggression with the West and its direct attack upon thousands of American civilians on American soil.
Geoffrey,
You project high moral principles onto oil, wealth, putative or imaginary allies, and strategic responses to wars of aggression. If that last were in any way true we would have done better to attack and give lesson to the Royal House of Saud.
Answer me this, if you will. Is it so difficult to see our righteousness as benighted, our intentions as ingenuous, our entire foreign policy (for seventy years) as counter productive? History repeats itself, in my lifetime, before my very eyes, and all I can do is pray to God that it’s all a surreal nightmare and I’ll wake up to everything’s copasetic.
Several generation ago, we were over there (Korea, Vietnam) fighting the Communists, while the neo-Marxists here were marching through the institutions. We now find ourselves fighting Islamists over there, while the Islamists, the BrotherHood, march through the government institutions. It would take the likes of Chris Buckley to make of this farce a satire. Why the hell, how the hell, is it that it is so damn difficult for people to connect two damn dots?
I could have sworn that 3,000 Americans butchered on 9-11-2001 were our soil.
George,
I did NOT “project high moral principles onto oil or wealth. Oil priced prohibitively would collapse western economies. It has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with survival.
There are millions of South Koreans and thousands of Vietnamese American immigrants who would fiercely argue with you as to S. Korea and the former S. Vietnam being ” putative or imaginary allies”. And strategic responses to wars of aggression need no moral defense, as self-defense is an unalienable right.
We can’t make a legally justifiable case for attacking Saudi Arabia, at least not yet.
It’s not difficult “to see our righteousness as benighted, our intentions as ingenuous, our entire foreign policy (for seventy years) as counter productive?” it’s just profoundly ignorant (no personal offense intended) to suggest that to be the case.
At the federal level, America certainly operates according to realpolitik, at the same time we are, by far, a more generous society than the entire world combined. I’m 66 and and have also seen plenty of history, when history ‘repeats’ itself, its because an important lesson hasn’t been learned and, we haven’t learned a fundamental one; “a difficult lesson”.
That “we were over there (Korea, Vietnam) fighting the Communists, while the neo-Marxists here were marching through the institutions” doesn’t lessen the importance of one versus the other. The line between freedom of speech and thought… and sedition and treason is a perilously thin and difficult one to define.
Its not that the dots are difficult to connect, we just profoundly disagree as to the picture they present. Much like this, the old lady is obvious, when your mental paradigm changes, you also see the young woman.
Well that’s frustrating. many minutes spent crafting a careful reply, click on the ‘submit comment’ and it disappears. Try to resubmit and it tells me that’s a duplicate comment…
We profoundly disagree George and I haven’t the energy to craft a new reply.
First, the communists marched thru our institutions, and now its the Muzzies, says George Pal. You left out a few other marchers, George. But the bottom line is the Sinistras are hard at work. I agree with that. But those Democrats who govern have aided and abetted. The GOP, not so much.
Where you lose me is in your belief our foreign adventures were distractions from our internal Democratic corruption.
So what you gonna do? Who you gonna call?
A lot of good comments on this issue.
Any mild perusal of history will show that humans have a strong proclivity to use force to attain the things they value. In some cases it has been land and resources. In others, it has been influence or control over resources. A major cause of war down through the ages has been to convert other people to your religious or cultural beliefs. The purveyors of Communism wanted to control land, resources, and people’s beliefs. They had a vision of utopia on Earth. The Commies who have learned nothing from past failures still do. Other wars in the past have been fought for the same reasons. Thus, anyone with just a passing knowledge of history would know that human nature invariably leans toward using force to get what we want. Weakness is always tempting – whether to a street thug or a nation looking to improve its situation by conquest. Religion and systems of government are main bones of contention among humans. Always have been, probably always will be.
The end of history was proclaimed after the USSR fell apart. A world where democracy and free market capitalism were ascendant was believed to be at hand. Peace and prosperity was expected. But something happened on the way to that bright new future. Some old (1400 years and counting) religious grudges had been festering in the Middle East. And oil wealth made it possible for those who held the grudge to buy weapons and influence. The Muslims tried three times to push the Jews into the sea with military force. Having failed at that, they have developed a new grand strategy — Fourth Generation Warfare (FGW) coupled with infiltration.
The Muslim world is not a near term existential threat because they have no industrial base and no economic base except for oil production. All they have are fearsome jihadis and terrorism coupled with open immigration into the West. FGW is based on the belief that the West, even with a mighty, modern military, cannot defeat FGW and terrorism as long as the West abides by the just war concept and the Geneva Conventions. Jihadis are will-o-the wisp targets who can set up operations in failed states and move among the civilian populations. Their leaders may be killed, their training camps may be destroyed, but they can move on and rebuild their forces. There is a large population of young Muslim men who see the life of a jihadi as a chance to amount to something — to be a somebody, not a nobody as they are in many Muslim lands. There always seems to be a supply of money from oil sheikdoms and mosques for arms and operations.
Additionally, the radical Muslims have a longer term, non-violent strategy — infiltration and using the same techniques as the left to subvert Western society. We have seen it in operation in Europe. They immigrate, but they don’t integrate. Once they are numerous enough, they begin to demand concessions to their religious practices. They become active in politics. They produce far more children than the natives of the countries they inhabit. Eventually they will be the majority. It’s a long range plan that Mark Steyn wrote about in “America Alone.”
We cannot defeat FGW and radical Islam with conventional war alone. We need to use all the tools, both military and non-military to defeat this threat.
When necessary and appropriate, we need to use overwhelming military force. In the case of ISIS, they are giving us a fat target for our technological military superiority. We know where their training camps are, where their storage facilities are, and where their command and control facilities are. In the desert airpower is supreme. They have no defense against air power. It should be applied in massive amounts against their infrastructure. I’m talking B-52s and obliteration of targets.
In the meantime we can supply Jordan and Iraq (especially the Kurds) with the military supplies and guidance (advisors) that their armies need to mop up the remnants of ISIS. With proper planning and coordination the campaign should last no more than 6 months. After that we can tailor our response to what follows. Staying ready to respond militarily in the present situation (Islamic terrorism, an aggressive Russia, and China becoming more aggressive.) is just good sense. My favorite saying — “Peace through superior firepower.”
I’ve listed the non-military (War by other means) avenues we must use before:
1. Interdiction of money networks.
2. Openly challenging Islam to reform.
3. Stop immigration from Muslim lands except under certain conditions. (Have a job, swear to integrate, denounce terrorism and violent jihad, etc.)
4. Go after imams in Western mosques that are preaching violent jihad. Pass laws against preaching sedition and put them in prison or deport them.
5. Stop all aid to Muslim countries that have radical Islamic terrorist organizations that are operating openly.
6. Begin an all-out effort in the West to produce enough energy to make the Muslim oil fields much less important in the world energy equation.
There are other things, but those are the major ones off the top of my head.
The long term goal should be to keep the radical Islamists in a box until their oil runs out and/or they reform their religion. It will be a long slog, but with a plan in place and some decent leadership, it can be achieved with a reasonable cost in blood and treasure. We are the only country with the economic and industrial base to lead the effort.
However, Obama and company will not do this. Things are going to get worse. If we are hit again before 2016, the election will be a repudiation of the “Walk stickly and carry a big soft” foreign policy.
If that last were in any way true we would have done better to attack and give lesson to the Royal House of Saud.
That’s usually what the armchairs think after Iraq and Afghanistan, however they are incapable of presenting a feasible logistics plan to do so, while having no real Middle East allies or population base from which to strike at them.
Fantasies made from incompetent dream making. They live in the make believe land that they can orchestrate military logistics and strategy. They have no clue and still don’t.
We profoundly disagree George and I haven’t the energy to craft a new reply.
It’s likely in the spam filters on automatic stash. Neo might be able to find it manually.
Several generation ago, we were over there (Korea, Vietnam) fighting the Communists, while the neo-Marxists here were marching through the institutions.
Can’t even connect two dots between Democrat wars to distract people and Republican wars based on sound strategy. Is it strategy you are incapable of understanding or is it connecting two dots in a line you are incapable of understanding, that is the question.
Yarsmaker,
Yes, I do it in an armchair. I am not paid to do it otherwise. For that we have an entire defense/military complex of which Defense and the Pentagon are costly parts. If those at those posts cannot come up with strategy, tactics, logistics then we’ve been overpaying.
Yes, two dots you ingenuous GOPer. Diversionary Democratic wars! The Republicans would never, ever, ever-ever do such a thing. After all, whatever had they to distract us from in the Bush years – trillion dollar deficit spending; continuing centralization of Federal political power; a still metastasizing welfare State; the burgeoning surveillance State; Mexican immigration, legal and illegal; the welcoming of Muslims and their inhered enmity to all things Western/American; no borders but on paper borders?
Fantasies made from incompetent dream making indeed – and wishful thinking. Click twice the heels of your ruby red shoes and you’ll be in Kansas again.
Geoffrey Britain:
I found your comment in the spam file, and made it appear in the thread.
Sometimes for no discernible reason a comment gets tagged as spam.
Thank you for offering this what is a title search. For a nice and looking for similar to this. Excellent information I am going to come back for just about any info associated with a Lentil soup Diet plan.
Excellent post. I used to be checking continuously this blog and I’m impressed!
Extremely useful info specifically the remaining section 🙂 I handle such info a lot.
I used to be looking for this certain information for a long time.
Thank you and good luck.